G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Unless you’ve been on vacation at the North Pole, you’ve
been bombarded daily with news and opinions about Donald Trump Jr. (The
President’s son) having a meeting (weeks before the Presidential Election) with
a Russian Attorney (possible operative) representing (allegedly) the Russian
Government and indirectly Vladimir Putin.

Well, let’s just say that Donald Trump Jr. kind of stepped
in it when he agreed to meet with Natalia Veselnitskaya. She apparently teased Junior with the claim
that she and ‘the Russians’ had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. He reportedly responded in an email with “I
love it.” Now, one would normally think
that Junior would be smarter than that and, perhaps, considering the
circumstances, use more grown-up terms in his emails, but…

Anyway, Natalia had nothing on Hillary other than what she
might have read in the National Inquirer.

Nonetheless, Natalia did have a pitch to make to Junior; and it
concerned the Magnitsky Act. I know you’ve
heard this term bantered-about recently, but most have no idea who Magnitsky
is/was or what he has to do with the ‘Act’; a law passed by the U.S.
Congress. Apparently, Putin hates this law, and in particular the name.
After the law passed, Putin retaliated by prohibiting Americans from
adopting Russian orphans – even some children already in the pipeline for
adoption.

The U.S. law (Magnitsky Act) bans numerous Russian officials and various
Russian oligarchs from entering the U.S.
Also, as I understand it, a lot of Russian money held in the American
banking system was ‘frozen.’

The purpose
of the law was in retaliation for the inhumane and barbaric treatment, and the
ultimate death, of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney and auditor who
reportedly uncovered ‘State’ sponsored theft that benefited Vladimir Putin and
some of his close associates. We are
talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

Well, Putin et al took this unkindly – as you might imagine. Magnitsky was imprisoned and died under the
most difficult and abusive conditions imaginable.

There is a longer story to all of this which was exposed in
a very good book Red Notice; authored
by Bill Browder. The book gives you some
insight into Putin’s Russia and the Russian prison system. Not pretty – think North Korean not pretty.

Monday, July 10, 2017

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hostage Rescue Team
(HRT) is the focal point, the head of the spear, for the FBI’s Critical
Incident Response Group (CIRG). CIRG was
formed after I left the Bureau and I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of its
inner-workings. However, said Group
incorporates many different areas of expertise:
hostage negotiations, demolitions, in addition to HRT.

HRT Training is extremely difficult. The process, a few years back, required potential
applicants for HRT training to have at least three years as a ‘street Agent,’ involved
in working cases, writing reports, and occasionally being participants in
arrest situations. CIRG had difficulty
getting the necessary numbers and applicant quality required for HRT. Now CIRG has changed (not lowered) the
requirement to two years on the ‘street’ as an Agent – and they have begun to
recruit military type individuals like Navy SEALS, Army Rangers and other
Special Ops veterans.

Which brings me to W. Joseph Astarita, the FBI Agent under
indictment. As far as I know, his
background and experience is not known – but we can assume his HRT training
has been extensive.

I will get right to the point. Agent Astarita might have violated some
obscure element of the FBI’s ‘rules of engagement’ when he fired his weapon at
the car containing Finicum and the others.
But let us remember that the driver of the car (Finicum) was attempting
to evade law enforcement and his vehicle was approaching; at a high speed, a
roadblock – behind which law enforcement officers were standing.

Question: Why were law
enforcement personnel standing behind a roadblock (consisting of parked vehicles)
with a suspect vehicle barreling toward them at a high rate of speed? Why not stand off to the side? Or behind a tree? The video showed one Agent jumping from
behind the road block as Finicum’s car appeared to be on course to crash into
the road block. This Agent almost made a
fatal mistake in that Finicum decided to plow his automobile through the snow attempting
to go around the law enforcement vehicles.
The snow stopped the car, whereupon Finicum jumped out.

Depending where
Astarita was standing at the time, he could have well believed that his life or
the lives of others were in danger – warranting efforts to stop the car. Yes, I know there were ‘innocent’ passengers
in Finicum vehicle, but that doesn’t change the decision process.

Let’s just say that Astarita, with all of his extensive
training, was a little ‘trigger happy.’
I don’t happen to believe that, but let’s consider it for the sake of
argument. And, in shooting, in some way,
he had violated an FBI rule.

Did he contribute to the ultimate death of Finicum? That’s really a stretch, but one could say
that Astarita’s shots raised the tension among law enforcement personnel at the
scene, which contributed to lethal action - when the OSP officer ultimately shot Finicum. I don’t buy this, but this
concept will undoubtedly be trotted out in the civil suit.

After shots were fired, Astarita picked up his spent cartridges,
apparently doubting his personal judgment in firing at the car driven by
Finicum - and then attempted to conceal the fact. This defies common sense – not the
picking up of spent cartridges part – he may not have wanted to litter. (Yes, yes, stated with tongue in cheek.) But the part where he lied about it. Why would he do that?

There are a couple of possible answers that come to
mind. Members of HRT are allegedly trained
to the point of perceived perfection. And,
consequently I imagine they are inordinately sensitive about their image and
reputations.

Astarita might have fired accidentally, which might explain
why one bullet missed Finicum’s car completely, and one bullet creased the roof
of the car. If he, in the throes of
understandable stress, accidentally pulled the trigger and/or missed the target
he intended to hit, he might have been embarrassed enough to attempt to conceal
the fact. The FBI's administration would have
subsequently asked: Why did you fire
your weapon? And, if justified as you
say, why did you miss your target after we’ve spent all this time training you?

Or perhaps: There was
a Team Leader with the HRT, presumably not Astarita; and that said team leader
told his men not to fire until he gave the word. Astarita jumped the gun (so to speak), and
consequently felt he violated the Team Leader’s orders.

On a HRT, not following directives, would be a bigger offense than an
outsider might first think. Following orders is absolutely imperative to a high-speed organization like HRT. No free-lancing is allowed under most
circumstances.

Astarita’s big mistake, that will undoubtedly cost him his
job, is that he lied. And, furthermore,
continued to lie after being placed under ‘oath.’ The FBI has no place for personnel that lie
under ‘oath.’ Said individual can no
longer testify in court without their credibility being immediately challenged.

If convicted should Astarita be sentenced to jail or
prison time? I don’t think so. His lie compromised or injured no one other
than himself – and he will probably regret his decision for the rest of his
life.

What remains unanswerable at this point is whether or not
some of the other HRT members also lied to protect Astarita? I hope not.

True Nelson

True Nelson
To visit my blog and many previous posts on various subjects, go to:

Saturday, July 8, 2017

W.
Joseph Astarita, a member of the FBI’s vaunted Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) has
been indicted on multiple counts for ‘Making False Statements’ and ‘Obstruction
of Justice,’ relevant to the killing of Robert “Lavoy” Finicum.

The
incident is beginning to fade from public memory, but occurred when Finicum
attempted to evade a law enforcement roadblock. It’s been more than a year -
the illegal occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns,
Oregon. Finicum was shot and killed by
an Oregon State Police Officer when he (Finicum) exited his vehicle and
attempted to reach for a holstered gun – as was alleged and seemed to be
convincingly portrayed on a video.

Years
back, when I was a young Agent, the FBI realized that they required a force of
Agents better suited and trained to deal with particularly dangerous
situations. I was one of the first
Agents from my division to be selected for, what was called at the time, SWAT
training.

As
I recall initial preference in selection was given to former military types who
volunteered; but additionally they would be required to pass a very intense
physical test. It included, but was not
limited to, a two mile run, shooting and what they called ‘gladiator skills.’

Gladiator
Skills consisted of a large ring, maybe 25 feet in diameter, holding two teams
of five each. The teams were required to
sit back to back in the center of the ring.
When the instructor gave the signal, the fight was on. The object was to continue fighting until one
team had dragged or thrown every member of the opposing team out of the
ring. There were no particular
rules. However, for the most part,
members on the opposing team were associates, even friends, so it was mostly
wrestling and pushing.

As
one of the bigger guys on my assigned team, I was back to back with a former collegiate
football player. So, my thought was that
this is not going to go well, and would almost certainly be over rather quickly. And, actually it was. They blew the whistle and we all jumped
up. I backed away weighing my next
incredibly inadequate move on this guy.
He came at me as if to tackle me or push me out of the ring. Hitting me in the stomach with his shoulder,
I was able to momentarily lift him off his feet and turn. Surprisingly during this process, he stepped
out of bounds; and an instructor called him “out.” The instructor laughed like he couldn’t
believe what had just happened. It
couldn’t have been more than five or ten seconds.

I
was selected for one of the SWAT teams and later sent to Quantico to endure two
weeks of very difficult and demanding training – lots of running, obstacle
courses, orienteering, shooting, as well as all manner of physical hell.

I
did excel at one test – swimming. I had
been on the swimming team in high school and always loved to swim. It was only 100 meters (a fifty meter pool,
once up and once back) – not a big deal – I first thought. There were four or five teams from around the
country. All team members would start at
the same time. To win this particular contest,
and everything was a competition between the SWAT teams, the entire team had to
finish. My team leader, who had been
raised in Texas was a heck of a guy, but not a very good swimmer – an
understatement. He told me he had done
all of his swimming in a ‘horse trough’ – jokingly of course; but I could see
he was shaking. The instructor yelled,
“If any of you sissies feel like you might drown during the swim, you can wear
a life jacket.” Sissy or not, my team
leader decided to wear the life jacket, as did maybe six or seven others.

There
were a couple of additional little tweaks to the competition. We were required to put on a fatigue shirt
and pants over our swim suits.
Additionally we were required to swim the 100 meters with a shotgun
attached to a strap around our necks.
Surprisingly, if you kept your head down in the water, breathing with
every other stroke, the shotgun didn’t seem like that big of a deal. The fatigues were another matter. Nonetheless, I managed to finish first.

I
was then able to take off the shotgun and fatigues and dive back in the pool to
assist my team leader who, at that point, reminded me of a wounded duck,
thrashing away, and making little progress.I got a hold of him and pulled while he kicked.Dragging his exhausted body out of the pool,
one of the instructors said, “Way to go big fella.”It made my day.The training mission, throughout the two
weeks, was to act as a team; that together the team would be stronger than the
sum of any five individuals.Team effort
and spirit were often praised.

If
you passed and most did, you went back to your division to continue your
training; and to be utilized in the more dangerous assignments.

The point
here is that, if SWAT training in my era was the equivalent of grade school
or junior high, the modern HRT members are college graduates.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Much has been written and reported about the Friday murders
on a Portland MAX (Metropolitan Area Express) commuter train. I have some thoughts from a law enforcement perspective.

Let’s be clear, I was not on the train. I have no firsthand knowledge of how the
incident evolved. As I understand it…

It was a busy commuter train loaded with passengers – about 4:30PM. Jeremy Christian was causing a disturbance. He was loud and erratic – screaming abusive language
like: “colored people are ruining the
city.” He then seemed to turn his wrath
on two young women, who he perceived to be Muslim.

Passengers, three men, attempted to intervene, trying to
calm Christian down, stating that he should sit down and leave the train at the
next stop. The situation escalated
quickly. Christian pulled a knife,
slashing out, ultimately killing two of the men and injuring another. Christian then jumped off the train at the
next station. He was quickly apprehended
by law enforcement.

The citizens who confronted Christian are praised as heroes. And without doubt, their efforts to
neutralize a bad situation were heroic. However,
from a perspective of a former FBI Firearms and police instructor, their
actions were perhaps ill-advised. This
is not meant as criticism. The men
showed bravery. Their intentions were
noble. I will explain my reservations.

The men, probably due to the noise and confined space on the
train, approached Christian too closely and attempted to reason with him. Christian was manic, apparently deranged and
possibly under the influence of drugs.
The men’s approach made him feel diminished and ‘trapped.’

Experienced law enforcement officers know that
people like Christian are not easily ‘talked down,’ especially when they have
an audience. Police recognize that someone
like Christian is extremely dangerous, and they would give themselves space to maneuver – unless
a situation demands otherwise. A
uniformed officer probably would have talked to Christian from five to ten feet
and encouraged him to step off the train at the next stop so that they could
discuss it; being careful that Christian would not perceive the situation as ‘losing
face.’ At that point, an arrest could be
made without endangering other passengers.

As an FBI Agent, I carried a gun on duty and off duty for several
years. If I had been on the MAX train
during this incident, I would not have approached Christian. As any citizen should, I would have called 911
advised them of the situation, asked the police to meet us at the next stop.

What would Christian have done if I had approached him,
showed my FBI credentials, and told him to sit down and be quiet? Probably, the situation would have gone from
bad to worse. Now, if he had been
brandishing a knife and threatening to harm other passengers that would be a very
different situation and could have, probably would have, warranted lethal
force.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Before I leave the subject of my recent surgery, I’d like to
express a word or two about religion and what role it plays in my life – more
importantly what I believe.

This is an awkward subject in that I have had close friends
and relatives who are, for lack of a better word, religious. On the other hand, I have had close friends
and relatives who were atheists – at least I think that is how they would
describe themselves.

There is a saying that ‘there are no atheists in foxholes.’ I tend to believe that, but
can’t say with certainty. I’ve never
been in a military operation where death seemed probable or imminent. Even if I had been, I’m convinced that would
not be a priority topic for discussion among my comrades-in-arms. It’s just too personal.

On a bit of an aside, awhile back I was reading about D-Day
(June 6, 1944). There were many dying
young men on the beaches, many merely boys.
Medics reported that dying soldiers did not, for the most part, call out
to God. They often called for their
mothers. I found that statement troubling and hard to
forget.

The type of heart surgery I had can be a little scary. They, after all, cut/saw your chest open and
stop your heart while they make repairs.
That said, we are so lucky/blessed to have the expert medical care that
actually accomplishes this type of surgery – as well as even more difficult
surgeries – on a day to day basis, on hundreds if not thousands of people.

In my last meeting with the cardiac surgeon, before surgery,
he was actually pretty upbeat – stating that he had done more than 30,000
similar surgeries. This was shocking –
“30,000.” Then you start thinking maybe
he will get bored with this particular operation, maybe lose focus and start
thinking about playing golf later that day; or even worse – nod off during the
procedure. He said that my surgery had a
99% chance of success and a complete recovery.
I didn’t say it, but my immediate thought was: What about the other 1%? I did say “that sounds pretty good.” He smiled and went on his way.

What is odd, from my perspective, is that he never asked
anything about me. My wife was there so
he knew I had family; but he asked nothing about me personally: What do you do in life? Are you retired? Do you have kids, grandkids? Hobbies?
A dog? I guess he knew everything
about me that he cared to know from the various x-rays, blood tests, my DOB,
and my overall physical appearance. I was just number
30,002 as far as he was concerned. A few weeks later I went to his
office for a follow-up, but he had an emergency surgery so my wife and I just
talked to his nurse – who, incidentally, was quite nice.

What does this have to do with religion? Well, I said a little prayer while they were
wheeling me down to surgery. I did not
ask for a successful surgery – too presumptuous. And what I did say (think) or ask from God is
private.

In the way of full disclosure,
I’m not what you would consider a religious person. I consider myself an agnostic. I don’t know if there is a God. I don’t know that there isn’t a God. Those who have an established religious faith
– I say ‘good for you;’ but, as far as I’m concerned no one knows with absolute
certainty there is a God. That said, no
one, including self-avowed atheists, even those willing to shout their atheism
from the roof tops, know there is not a God.
It is the ultimate unknowable.
Someday, that final day, we will know or we won’t know. But, in the future, I plan to focus on the Golden
Rule. That might be adequate.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

In the future, maybe more than in my past blog posts, I plan to
write about some of my life experiences, people I know and have known, events
of note, and general experiences I’ve had thus far. Recently, I had one of those block-buster
events that I must say knocked me back, and that’s an understatement. It caused me to reevaluate my priorities. Take a closer look at the meaning of life,
and what’s important.

It came on rather suddenly.
I was diagnosed with an aneurysm which was serious enough that I was
routed immediately to the emergency room of a major hospital. As any doctor would tell you, if your aorta
ruptures, it’s pretty much ‘lights out.’
Kind of funny now, but my initial emotion was anger – anger at no one in
particular I guess, except perhaps myself.

I’m in my early 70s, but I lived a fairly healthy life. I don’t drink or smoke. I’m generally careful about what I eat. I was not what you might consider
overweight. I exercise and belong to a
gym. It’s silly to think that way, but
my initial impression was ‘this just isn’t fair.’ Of course, I’m fully aware that one of the
basic tenets of life is that life is never fair. Stupid of me to even think otherwise – even
as a passing thought. Look around your
local community. Look around the world. That I had such a thought, even momentarily,
now embarrasses me.

Eight days in the hospital – replaced a portion of my aorta,
a new heart valve, and one bypass. It’s
been nearly eight weeks post-surgery.
Recovery, at times, has been a bumpy road. I’ve lost quite a bit of weight. I now weigh what I did in high school; but
look, of course, much worse than I did in high school. I now resemble a plucked, anorexic chicken. I won’t be prancing around the beach in my
Speedo any time soon. (Actually I don’t have
a Speedo, and haven’t had one since the HS swimming team. And my friends would surely opine ‘thank god
for that.’)

I’m in a cardiac rehab program and making progress. The Doc said I could try golf again after
three months. I’m a little worried about
my golf game. But, friends have assured
me not to worry, that my golf game never amounted to much anyway. It’s great to have friends willing to offer
support when you’re really feeling down.

I’m going to write more about my life and how it has evolved. It’s been quite a ride. Some of you might enjoy reading this. Well, maybe not, but I plan to write about it
anyway. It’s part of my therapy.

Friday, May 12, 2017

I have some comments regarding the sudden termination of James
Comey, FBI Director. It seemed pretty clear
that Director Comey had to go. I do not,
however, agree with the manner in which he was given his walking papers. Ham-fisted.
You just don’t treat people that way.
But the President just doesn’t seem to get it.

I understand why a President, any President, under the given
circumstances, would have ‘fired’ Comey.
The Director seems to have let his ego overwhelm his judgement. I listened to all of his recent testimony
before the Senate Committee; and it made me cringe. He was loving the limelight, basking in the
attention. It was too obvious. His statement, in consideration that he
might have influenced the Presidential election in some way, had made him
“mildly nauseous,” well he made me mildly nauseous.
An FBI Director simply does not talk that way. My opinion.

Now, I must say that Comey, as I understand it, was fairly
well liked in the Bureau. Generally
speaking, most who have worked with him consider him to be a good and decent
man – intelligent, personable, and well versed in the law. But those qualities do not necessarily make a
good Director of the FBI.

His inevitable downfall began with his ‘prosecutive opinion’
regarding Hillary Clinton. At that
point, he apparently decided to assert his primacy over the Attorney General’s
Office which is, theoretically at least, his superior. His determination that Hillary Clinton should
not be prosecuted – after describing in some detail how she was undoubtedly in
violation of Federal Law – was something of a shock to those who have worked in
federal law enforcement. He stated that
there was no indication of “intent.’
When the relevant statutes protecting classified information do not, for
the most part, require establishing ‘intent.’
Hillary Clinton violated the law – pure and simple. Comey should have turned that information
over to the Department of Justice for them to make the decision as to whether
or not they were willing to prosecute, and if not why not.

Summation: Hillary
Clinton was either ‘off the chart’ ignorant of how to handle classified
information, or she purposely defied the law – feeling, I suppose, that she was
above the mundanity of such laws. I
believe the latter.

After exonerating her, Comey was later trapped attempting to
explain to Congress and the American public why the FBI had to reopen the investigation
of Hillary, and her errant emails, right before the Presidential election. The Weiner computer. Whoops.
Last straw.

And, what was the genesis of all this? Well, of course, it was the private meeting
of the Master Manipulator Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch on
the tarmac where, according to Lynch, they discussed grandchildren and
golf. How stupid do they think we are?

Sorry Mr. Comey but you allowed yourself to become
collateral damage of that meeting. It’s
best that you move on.

Monday, March 13, 2017

I’ve always had this tendency to bristle whenever someone,
who has never been in law enforcement or worked in the judicial system, lays
that old saw on me: Justice isn’t always just.
But, of course, they’re right.
It’s sort of a bitter pill to swallow when you’ve dedicated a portion of
your life to that profession.

Nonetheless, this brings me to the article by Maxine
Bernstein in The Oregonian (March 12, 2017) –“Prosecutors Reflect on Refuge
Takeover Trials.” This article pertains
to the second trial in the unlawful takeover of the Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon by ‘armed occupiers.’

The ‘occupation,’ the ‘armed standoff,’ began in January of
2016; and ended with one of the ‘occupiers’ being shot and killed by Oregon
State Police. There was, as noted, an
earlier trial of the principals, the leadership, in that stand-off. All the defendants in the first trial (Ammon
Bundy et al) were acquitted.

Ms. Bernstein asked U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams – why the
U.S. Attorney’s office pursued a second trial of lesser involved defendants when
the first trial of the leadership ended in acquittals.

Williams said that the “decision to continue to pursue
felony conspiracy charges against the lesser-known defendants, after last
fall’s acquittal of occupation leader Ammon Bundy and six other key figures,
was made between his office and Justice officials.”

And you might ask: What’s
the motivations behind that decision? Well,
there are a couple of possible explanations.

An ‘occupier,’ Robert ‘LaVoy’
Finicum was killed during the ‘stop’ by Oregon State
Police and the FBI. Finicum’s wife is suing the
Federal government charging ‘excessive force and wrongful death,’ among other
things. She is asking for $5 million in
damages for herself and for each of her 12 children. Federal lawyers do not want to go into court
and attempt to fight those charges when no one was actually convicted of a
crime - principally the big seven leaders of the ‘occupation.’ It was imperative, therefore, that the
government win at least some convictions and be able to trot-out some actual
evidence of criminal behavior, even if those persons convicted played more minor
roles.

Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney’s
office admitted that the acquittals in the first trial (the big seven) was an
“excruciating” defeat. And, there could
be an element of ‘saving face’ involved for the U.S. Attorney, the Department
of Justice in D.C., and the FBI.

The U.S. Attorney might also allude
to a responsibility for pursuing prosecutions that are owed to the citizens of
Burns and Harney County who were inconvenienced in many ways. But, I don’t think that aspect was given much
weight.

When Williams was additionally asked how he accepted the two
significantly different trial verdicts, he responded that, “It takes two
different juries evaluating the evidence and testimony and making different
conclusions. Sometimes, that’s how this
system works.’’ No mention was made that
the original defendants were ‘overly charged with complex crimes,’ which seemed
to turn the trial into a nuanced exercise that the jury did not find
understandable or compelling.

But, to many of us, the conclusion is that: Justice is not always just.

The following from Ms. Bernstein’s article:

Felony charges recently adjudicated in the second trial:

Conspiracy to impede employees of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM from doing their work at the
refuge through intimidation, threat or force.

Possessing a firearm in a federal
facility.

Depredation of government
property. (This was interesting. I thought I was fairly familiar with federal
violations investigated by the FBI, but I’d never heard of anything like
“Depredation.” I had to look up the word
in the dictionary and found... “An attack
involving plunder and pillage.” Wow, how
would you like that on your rap sheet?)

Saturday, March 4, 2017

A very interesting development – explosive in a way –
President Donald Trump has accused the Obama administration of placing a ‘wire-tap’
on the offices of candidate Donald Trump – weeks before the election.

In response, Barrack Obama has quickly and formally denied involvement in
any such efforts – which could potentially be considered illegal.

But, don’t be too quick to dismiss this as a Trump fantasy.

It is conceivable that the Obama administration perceived or
imagined Trump’s suspected involvement with the Russians was to undermine the
election. They (the Obama
administration) directed a government agency to present their suspicions, via
affidavit, to the FISA Court. This is
usually done by the FBI or the NSA – but could have been presented by the United States
Attorney. Permission could then have
been granted by the court; and monitoring begun.

Furthermore, the wire-tap process would require the Court to
advise, in writing, the ‘target’ ninety days after the program had been
terminated. The timing seems to
fit. This information could have been
just now dropped in Trump’s lap.

If true, and we don’t know at this point, someone will almost certainly be 'thrown under the bus.' Will it be FBI
Director Comey or perhaps former Attorney General Loretta Lynch?

Obama will simply deny any knowledge and will have undoubtedly prepared a contingency plan.

FISA Court: a U S court composed of a
rotating panel of federal judges that sits in secrecy to review prosecutors'
requests to wiretap telephones of suspected spies and terrorists and to conduct
searches.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

“Deputies seized nearly 100 pounds of methamphetamine worth
more than $2 million from two homes in Portland and Gresham.” Guns,
heroin and $30,000 in cash were also seized. Sounds like some darn good
police work on the part of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office.

Here’s where I have to be a little tactful – you know, in
light of Portland’s Sanctuary City thing. Nothing was mentioned in the
newspaper article as to whether or not those arrested - Alfredo Narcisco Pineda, Alejandro
Lopez Gonzales or Celso Marroquin Benitez - were in the United States legally.

Yes, I’m aware that the Portland Area City and County
officials would probably say that the citizenship of these three criminals (alleged)
is none of the public's business and even to consider such a thing is blatantly
racist.

OK, OK, I get it; but to continue… Let’s see, how did the Multnomah County
Sheriff’s Office possibly crack this case? Could it have had something to
do with the arrest of Salvador Martinez-Perez, in mid-February, when his semi 'produce' truck ran in a ditch in Sherman County (North Central
Oregon)? And, 'lo and behold,' hidden among the bell peppers was a large
quantity of meth, heroine, and cocaine valued in excess of $1 million – likely
en route to Portland. Could that have
been a lead?

Oh yes, and incidentally, law enforcement did opine
that it is likely, in view of the vast quantity of illegal drugs and other drug
paraphernalia recovered in the recent arrests, that a Mexican drug cartel is probably involved.

But, let’s be open minded…

There are probably several possibilities how this might have
transpired. I will present two for your
consideration:

1) The four individuals, mentioned
above, are here illegally, have close ties to a Mexican cartel; and perhaps
were sent and settled into the Portland area due to the City’s ‘welcoming’
pronouncements by City leaders.2) The four individuals are citizens
by birth or are perhaps “Dreamers,” by President Obama’s definition – and that
said four were on a college sponsored field trip to Mexico, maybe a research /
study type program, when they were inadvertently introduced to a Mexican drug
cartel.

I know, it’s none of my business what brought these four to
Portland and whether or not they are here legally, whether they have been
deported before, or why they were here in Portland in the first place; but
inquiring minds want to know. I’d like
to know.

The four, and perhaps others, were undoubtedly planning
to dump this poison in our communities.
Shouldn’t we know these things?

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Many people,
the vast majority I would venture, and particularly young people who seem so
eager to demonstrate (sometimes violently) in support of Sanctuary Cities, are
misinformed about why City and State Administrators often promote the concept.

I’ve been
researching immigration law and the various interpretations of the law. I started writing this long essay based on my
research; but have given that up. It
became a futile and tiresome project.
Hit delete. Start over.

So… Let’s see…

Illegal
immigration is one of those issues, like ‘guns,’ you can research and discuss
the subject; but no one is actually listening.
And facts? Eyes glaze-over. Facts be damned. No one cares.

We, of course,
have definitive federal immigration laws.
It quite clearly is against the law for foreign nationals to enter this
country illegally. The first time is a
misdemeanor, to include deportation. The
second time is a felony.

Federal, State
and City administrators have often taken it upon themselves to defy or ignore said law in the
name of ‘compassion,’ hence Sanctuary Cities. The ‘compassion’ justification is
phony. It is a deception. It is a lie.

The real reason
is ‘expediency.’ Take a city like
Portland or San Francisco, who is going to clean the thousands of hotel/motel
rooms, and do the tens of thousands of other jobs associated with keeping a
City operating? What about farm labor? Who will do it? As I’ve said before ‘illegals,’ generally
speaking, work hard and ask little of their employers. Well, you might ask, 'Is that a bad thing? The
‘illegals’ make money and the city or the farm hums-along.'

That’s one way
to look at it. However, in reality it’s
the hotel owners and their shareholders, agribusiness and their shareholders, as
well as many other contractors and businesses who profit. But, who often picks up the associated tab? The taxpayers will pay to cover all manner of
public services provided to the ‘illegals.’
Additionally, there is an increase in crime. Yes, there is. Look it up.
Research how many illegal immigrants now reside in our prison system.

Many
politicians, of course, are on board with allowing ‘illegals;’ and often
receive the support of those influential members of the community, stated
above, who ultimately profit.

And, we can’t
forget the associated benefit, ‘votes.’ ‘Illegals can’t vote,’ you might counter. No, but many U.S. citizens of the same ethnic
background do vote; and they are sympathetic to the cause. Moreover, too many of the rest of us, have
bought into the counterfeit ‘compassion’ argument that is continually put forth
– and are therefore willing to, unwittingly in my opinion, go along. ‘It’s
just the nice thing to do.’

There are ways
to solve the problem. If we need more
immigrants – allow more to enter legally.
If you want to stop illegal immigration, levy a large fine on anyone who
hires an ‘illegal.’ Of course, there
would have to be some sort of legitimate system to easily verify who is actually
a citizen of the U.S. and who is not.
But, you see, that’s not going to happen any time soon. Enforcement would create for some very rich
people an inordinate increase in their overhead. It is about, low cost, low maintenance,
labor. It is, after all, for the movers
and shakers of industry much more cost-effective to purchase a politician who will support
their view.

OK, you might
add, 'What about all the illegals that now
reside in the U.S. – many for decades?'

My response to
that would be: In that our ‘system,’ at
the local, state and federal levels, not only permitted this immigration
travesty, but in many ways encouraged it, our federal government should make
every effort to accommodate, in some way, the honest residents who are now here
illegally; but to round-up and deport the others - to include those convicted
of grievous misdemeanors (crimes against persons) and all felonies – no exceptions.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

A ‘Sanctuary City’ or
in some instances a ‘Sanctuary State’ has a stated policy to protect illegal
immigrants by not enforcing federal law or cooperating with federal law
enforcement agencies in immigration related enforcement. That policy can be expressly set forth as a
law or just observed in practice.

Why do cities or states
do that? The elected officials have two basic
reasons that actually have little or nothing to do with compassion. However, ‘compassion’ is the song they sing –
often associated with ‘crocodile tears.’

Reason #1: Cities have influential citizens (the political donor class) who, for
business reasons, require a considerable influx of cheap, hardworking,
dependable labor. And, incidentally, it
doesn’t hurt for the employer to have a little extra leverage in dealing with
these workers (‘illegals’). The employers that I’m referring to are the owners
and managers of hotels, motels, restaurants, construction operations of all
types, as well as landscape and maintenance, ad infinitum. Said ‘illegals’ are not normally public
employees in the immediate sense, but work for the countless companies that
contract with the city and / or support the tourist industry.

Reason #2: The majority of the city’s voting constituency
is in support of the ‘sanctuary city’ concept, even though the vast majority of
the public does not understand what is involved, what it means, or how that
might personally impact them.

The typical Mayor of a
city, such as Portland’s Mayor, Ted Wheeler, would principally focus on ‘reason
number one;’ because ‘reason number 2’ could be easily neutralized or
eliminated by any good PR firm. Besides ‘reason
one’ is where the money is.

In my previous post, I
referred to Ted Wheeler as ignorant or stupid because of some of his recent
comments and his strong support for the ‘sanctuary city program;’ as well as
his strident comments to defy President Trump - regardless of the potential
loss of federal funds and the impact those lost funds will have on City
residents.

OK, the Mayor isn’t
stupid. Well, maybe, if you want to use
Forrest Gump’s definition; and perhaps I’m tending to give the Mayor too much
credit. Forrest Gump might be right.

Monday, January 30, 2017

I’d like to weigh-in on ‘sanctuary’ cities; and in support
of President Trump’s current proclamations - which I understand are just temporary until the federal government can get a handle on what exactly is going on.

The associated impact of Sanctuary Cities is, without doubt, a law enforcement issue; and I believe most in the law enforcement community would agree. Maybe, I will talk more about this down the
road and how politicians attempt to spin their unlawful actions in support of ‘sanctuary
cities.’

But, for now, specifically, I’d like to talk about my home city,
Portland, Oregon. They have ‘proudly’
proclaimed themselves a 'sanctuary city' – commonsense be damned.

I particularly got a good laugh out of the ‘In my opinion’
article in the Oregonian (1/29/17) by our newly elected Mayor, Ted Wheeler. As justification for his position on keeping
Portland a sanctuary city, he utilized the famous quote displayed on the Statue
of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your
poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your
teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”My suggestion is that Mayor Wheeler dig-out his
underutilized college dictionary and look up the word ‘irony.’

And, then he should look out his window at the “homeless,” the
“tired,” the “poor,’ the “huddled masses,” “the wretched refuse,” that
currently try to survive the cold, hardships, and dangers associated with
downtown Portland streets. They are on
every block of the city. It’s a
disgrace.

My question would be:
Is Mayor Wheeler just plain stupid or is he a nut? Probably not stupid and he has many
degrees to prove it. He is, of course,
playing his cards as a politician attempting to placate his base. Everyone should recognize that politicians
have one priority and it is what’s best for them.

Wheeler is a new mayor, but he knows how the
game is played – albeit clumsily in this instance. Sorry to say, he doesn’t understand how absolutely ridiculous
he can sound. That seems to be a pretty common affliction with politicians these days.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Well, I was happy to see that President (now former) Barrack
Obama did not, in the waning days of his administration, pardon or commute the
sentence of Leonard Peltier who was convicted for the execution-style murder of
two FBI Special Agents – Ronald Williams and Jack Coler. As a result, Peltier will probably live out
the remainder of his miserable life in prison – as he should.

I hope the former President understood that his decision regarding Peltier will likely compromise any future positive relationships he might have had with the likes of Robert Redford, Willie Nelson and Pamela Anderson. But, these are the small sacrifices associated with leadership.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Most decent people hate
to read stuff like this, much less think about it. It sometimes seems hopeless. What’s that?
Oh, the Leonard Peltier statue erected on the American University campus
in Washington DC. It’s an affront to all
decent people, and American University should hear from us. But, guess what, they couldn’t care less.

Ms. Rebeca Basu, Public
Relations Manager for said University put forth the schools justification:

“American
University regards this statue as an exhibited piece of art and takes no
position on the advocacy movement. As part of a major
clemency push by supporters in the final days of President Barack Obama's
presidency, a 9-foot-tall statue of Native American activist and prisoner
Leonard Peltier has been installed at American University Museum to raise
awareness for Peltier's plight and pardon request. Peltier, convicted and
sentenced in 1977 in the shooting of two Federal Bureau of Investigation
agents, has maintained his innocence in the 41 years he's been imprisoned, and
his conviction has been contested by leading human rights organizations in the
United States and beyond.”

Ms. Basu (pictured above), who incidentally looks about 18 years
old, has articulated the University’s position.
It sounds pretty harmless doesn’t it?
Did you notice how she frames her statement to illuminate (exaggerate)
“Peltier’s plight” and to minimize the University's dubious motives.

Well, let’s see… ‘Peltier’s plight’ is that he is now serving a
life sentence for the brutal execution style murder of two FBI Agents – which Ms.
Basu passes off in a very sanitized way as “the shooting of two Federal Bureau
of Investigation Agents.” Almost sounds
accidental, doesn’t it?

Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were working a federal
case on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (South Dakota) – an inquiry that had nothing to do
with Leonard Peltier. As the Agents
drove along, their car was ambushed from a distance by Leonard Peltier et
al. The Agents' car was quickly riddled
with bullets and disabled. Both Agents
were wounded. They tried to take cover behind
their car and return fire, but all they had available were their revolvers and
a shotgun. They were outgunned and had
nowhere to hide. After sustaining
numerous wounds and unable to resist any further, Peltier et al approached the
Agents who were at that point unarmed and helpless. The Agents were shot in the head at close
range. One Agent made an attempt to
protect his face with his hand, an ineffective defense gesture of submission;
but the bullet, of course, passed through his hand and into his face.

Here are the facts of which you should be aware… A letter sent to American University’s
President from the FBI’s Agents’ Association. And, just who is the illustrious President (the principal decision maker) of said University? He is Dr. Cornelius M. Kerwin, aka Neil (and pictured below). I'm sure he is the one who gave Ms. Basu her marching orders.

December 29, 2016

American University

4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20016-8060

Dear President Kerwin:

I write today on behalf of the FBI
Agents Association (FBIAA), a voluntary professional association currently
representing over 13,000 active duty and retired FBI Special Agents.

We write to express our concern
regarding the decision by American University (AU) to proudly display a statue
of convicted murderer Leonard Peltier in an outdoor area, and to announce that
decision by repeating slanted and misleading claims about Peltiers’ murder convictions.

The message being sent by AU to FBI
Special Agents and their families, past and present, and to all members of the
law enforcement community, is both clear and troubling— AU has decided to
advance the political arguments of activists with little concern for providing
all of the facts or considering the views of law enforcement.

The fact that the display is a political
statement, rather than simply a display of art, is made clear in the press
materials released by AU in connection with the display. The AU press release notes that the display
is “part of a major clemency push by [Peltier] supporters” and that the
installation is intended to “raise awareness for Peltier’s plight and pardon
request.”

The press release from AU also includes
misleading descriptions of Peltier’s case and a variety of hyperlinks to
activist groups that have created a cottage industry dedicated to misleading
the public about Peltier. The press release does not, however, mention the
names of the murdered FBI agents, the circumstances surrounding their
execution, or the exhaustive judicial process already utilized by Peltier.

The FBIAA believes that AU should remove
the installation, and that AU has a responsibility to share additional facts
with students and the public.

Relevant facts regarding Peltier and his
convictions include:

On June 26, 1975, Leonard Peltier was
involved in an unprovoked attack on FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams
while they were searching for a fugitive on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
in South Dakota. Both agents were caught in an open field in a deadly crossfire
by members of the American Indian Movement. Both agents were critically wounded
and then summarily executed with rifle shots at pointblank range, killing them
instantly and mutilating their faces.

Leonard Peltier was convicted of first
degree murder and aiding and abetting in those murders and sentenced to two
consecutive life sentences. Through well-over a dozen appeals, twice reaching
the U.S. Supreme Court, every aspect of Peltier’s trial has been reviewed in
minute detail and his conviction and sentence has been upheld in every
instance.

Peltier has been far from a model
prisoner, and would never be considered a candidate for clemency but for his
status as a political celebrity. Peltier has been punished numerous times for
violating prison rules. In 1978, he was involved in an armed escape from Lompoc
Penitentiary, during which shots were fired at prison guards. For this
post-conviction criminal act, Peltier received an additional seven-year consecutive
sentence.

Peltier does not have a credible
argument for clemency. One of the requirements for Executive Clemency, as
described by the U.S. Attorney’s manual, is that a prisoner has accepted
responsibility “for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to its victims”
and that “A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than
vindication.” Peltier’s supporters, and now AU, have decided to re-litigate the
Peltier case rather than satisfy this requirement. AU has repeated the familiar
mix of folklore, falsehoods and out-of-context statements that are designed to
both exonerate and lionize Peltier in the eyes of the public, rather than show
any true remorse regarding the murders of Agents Coler and Williams.

The FBIAA is committed to protecting the
Constitution, and we appreciate the right to free expression. However, with
that right comes a responsibility to consider the consequences of speech. AU
should not use its property to celebrate the man convicted of murdering FBI Special
Agents Coler and Williams.”

PS: One more comment from me regarding ‘freedom
of speech’ and the diversity issue on campuses that seems to supersede any
semblance of commonsense.

American University is
proud to display a statue of Leonard Peltier (convicted cop killer), but would
they do the same for someone like General Robert E. Lee? I don’t think so. That would be just too controversial and politically
incorrect.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.